11–20 of 1001 posts
In the hypothetical case that a Bitcoin ETF gets hacked and its wallet(s) emptied, what happens? Is it any different from, say, a gold ETF having its physical gold stolen?
But I have a feeling like it will take an incident like the one you describe to happen first before that becomes mandatory.
In the hypothetical case that a Bitcoin ETF gets hacked and its wallet(s) emptied, what happens? Is it any different from, say, a gold ETF having its physical gold stolen?
The death of crypto was written endlessly on HN. The investor activity is much more bullish over last 6 months. I think the only hot VC right now in all of tech is AI and blockchain. Now a lot of people here will be investing in Bitcoin without even knowing it, as their passive fund investments begin accumulating. The sweet victory against the no coiners.
In the hypothetical case that a Bitcoin ETF gets hacked and its wallet(s) emptied, what happens? Is it any different from, say, a gold ETF having its physical gold stolen?
and what would happen during/after a fork?
Now, that is a very interesting question.
If said ETF did their homework properly, their handling of a fork should be described in detail in their prospectus.
Not that I would ever buy a BTC ETF since it precisely negates what I believe Bitcoin to be useful for, but if I had to, I'd pick the one that would convert the forked coins back to BTC immediately after the fork.
If enough ETFs actually promise to apply this policy in their statutes, that would make it quite a hump to get over for a would-be forker, knowing the immediate price hit the forked coin would take because of the ETF immediately dumping it.
all it took was a judge declaring the SEC’s prior view toward bitcoin ETFs to be arbitrary and capricious and the SEC thinking about appealing but realizing this absolutely based SCOTUS would delete the SEC like Thanos if they ever get taken beyond circuit appeals court by the private sector markets win
[EDIT]: looks like no, saying "a based judge" actually has meaning in English.
The death of crypto was written endlessly on HN. The investor activity is much more bullish over last 6 months. I think the only hot VC right now in all of tech is AI and blockchain. Now a lot of people here will be investing in Bitcoin without even knowing it, as their passive fund investments begin accumulating. The sweet victory against the no coiners.
The death of crypto was written endlessly on HN. The investor activity is much more bullish over last 6 months. I think the only hot VC right now in all of tech is AI and blockchain. Now a lot of people here will be investing in Bitcoin without even knowing it, as their passive fund investments begin accumulating. The sweet victory against the no coiners.
People in HN are in a massive bubble; you see it with other topics too. It's nice to look here for some tech sentiment and interesting article sometimes, but for most cutting edge stuff this forum is always full of naysayers.
> Though we’re merit neutral, I’d note that the underlying assets in the metals ETPs have consumer and industrial uses, while in contrast bitcoin is primarily a speculative, volatile asset that’s also used for illicit activity including ransomware,[4] money laundering,[5] sanction evasion,[6] and terrorist financing.[7]
You can find how this was addressed in the approval:
> See, e.g., Kling Letter (stating that the bitcoin futures price is beholden to the spot price, and the spot price has always been, and continues to be, manipulated by bad actors); Better Markets Letter I at 2 and 4-9 and Better Markets Letter II at 4-6 (stating that spot bitcoin ETPs are extremely vulnerable to manipulation by bad actors because spot bitcoin markets (1) have a history of artificially inflated trading volumes due to rampant manipulation and wash trading, (2) are highly concentrated, and (3) rely on a select group of individuals and entities to maintain the bitcoin network); Letter from John Palmer, dated Aug. 11, 2023, regarding SR-CboeBZX-2023-028 (stating that 75% of the bitcoin in circulation is controlled by a small minority who use market makers to pump and dump); Daniel Smith Letter (“[t]he history of crypto is a never-ending history of frauds and scams”); Letter from Billy Jensen, dated Sept. 5, 2023, regarding SR- CboeBZX-2023-028 (stating that bitcoin is a digital Ponzi, and that approving a spot ETF “will bring greater unsuspecting fools into the pyramid scheme”); Letter from The Registered Principal, dated Aug. 9, 2023, regarding SR-CboeBZX-2023-038, SR-CboeBZX-2023-040, SR-CboeBZX-2023-042, SR- CboeBZX-2023-044, SR-NASDAQ-2023-016, SR-NASDAQ-2023-019, and SR-NYSEARCA-2023-44 (“[t]here are no verifiable entities or persons as points of ultimate origin of [b]itcoin which makes it very likely to be a major fraud operation”); Letter from Joseph, dated July 18, 2023, regarding SR-CboeBZX- 2023-044 (“[a] cartel of organized crime and money-launders [sic] actively manipulate the price of [b]itcoin through the use of Tether and other crypto-ponzi schemes”); Letter from Avinash Shenoy, dated Oct. 18, 2023, regarding SR-NASDAQ-2023-016 (stating that manipulation in the bitcoin marketplace has not gone away); Letter from Winston Wood, dated Oct. 19, 2023, regarding SR-NASDAQ-2023-016 (stating that the bitcoin market is manipulated and has a history rife with scams and criminal activity); Letter from Greg Steven, dated Oct. 19, 2023, regarding SR-NASDAQ-2023-016 (“Steven Letter”) (stating that bitcoin is wash traded on platforms outside of U.S. jurisdiction); Letter from Neil Fulton, dated Oct. 20, 2023, regarding SR-NASDAQ-2023-016 (recommending that spot bitcoin ETPs be disapproved until bitcoin wash trading is minimized); Letters from Micah Warren, Associate Professor of Mathematics, University of Oregon, dated Oct. 27, 2023, regarding SR-NASDAQ-2023-016, and dated Dec. 15, 2023, regarding SR-CboeBZX-2023-072 (“Warren Letters”) (explaining how the bitcoin ledger, which is maintained by for-profit mining entities, could become significantly less diverse and less costly to manipulate). Some commenters also assert that the bitcoin asset itself is a manipulation or fraud. One commenter states that “the complete lack of knowledge of who the operators of the bitcoin network are means that it is impossible to implement sufficient control measures to ensure a fair market that is free from manipulation of both token trades, actions of the operators, or even the fundamental properties of the asset itself.” See Letter from Brandon B., dated Oct. 25, 2023, regarding SR-NASDAQ-2023-016 (“Brandon Letter”), at 4. Another commenter asserts that the questions the Commission has been asking about fraud and manipulation are misguided because “they are predicated on the idea that [b]itcoin is something legitimate which could possibly serve the public interest.” This commenter claims that “[b]itcoin is, and has always been, a form of investment fraud” that should be banned, not regulated. See Letter from Sal
> Commission acknowledges these concerns. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act, however, the Commission must approve a proposed rule change filed by a national securities exchange if it finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the applicable requirements of the Exchange Act.61 For the reasons described above, the Commission finds that the Proposals satisfy the requirements of the Exchange Act, including the requirement in Section 6(b)(5)62 that the Exchanges’ rules be designed to “prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices.”
This is so sad. Crypto (including Bitcoin) serves as a money funnel while takes from economically insecure middle class retail investors and pours it into the pockets of the tremendously wealthy.